My two grown up lads dragged me to see this today.
Ho hum. The only reference that I recognised was right at the beginning where the German convoy approaching the farmhouse drives round the same corner about four times, which reminded me of the scene in Monty Python & The Holy Grail where two guards outside the castle (where Terry Jones* is being married off to the fat lass) watch John Cleese run over the brow of the same hill three or four times before he is suddenly upon them (and kills them), see two minutes into this:
But then again I'm no film buff. I do wonder, why doesn't Tarantino try and make a film that is enjoyable or interesting in its own right? Or a little bit more historically accurate, or even mildly credible?
* Ta to Mac The Knife for pointing out my glaring error.
The new Scotland
7 hours ago
10 comments:
Great clip.....
I am with you on Tarantino's work....its something I can semi appreciate on an artistic level but don't enjoy watching....a bit like a Jackson Pollock painting all very conceptually artistic but I will be buggered by a 17 foot Badger before hanging one on my wall.
You've raised the same concern that others have mentioned, that of historical fantasy.
I've been told it's a great watch if you can just turn off your mind to such things. One for a Friday night when toasted on Sancerre, it seems to me.
I'll wait for the DVD, then.
Liked Pulp Fiction, liked Reseviour Dogs, didn't think much of Kill Bill and want to see this.
However also trying to save as much money as I can by April next year and starting to get addicted to carp fishing now the cricket season is over and keep losing anything I hook over 10lb.
Cinema ticket or a stronger rod, baitrunner reel and bite alarm? Hmmm...
With the exception of Jackie Brown, you'll never find Tarantino making a historically accurate or credible film.
Gangsters don't sit around passing the time about the names of burgers in Paris or what Like a Virgin means.
What he does is, to me, like opera or greek tragedy. It's plainly not like the real world, but an exaggerated version of the world for dramatic effect.
As to historical accuracy, that in itself isn't important provided it's a credible parallel universe (like for instance, The Holy Grail, which kicks off by saying it's set in the 9th century, when any fule kno that King Arthur, to the extent he actually existed, was in the early 6th Century).
It is the early hours of the morning and I have just been through a far worse experience than anything Tarantino could imagine in 1000 French Burgers....
I have just watched "Becoming Jane"...a Biog of Jane Austin's life....A period drama which I find aptly named because it seemed to last all week with a sense of unease leading up to the main event.
A great film if your an insomniac (It sent the wife to sleep in 20 mins)....but could prove fatal to narcoleptics. Her books were far more interesting than her (Jane Austin) life and that's not saying much.....
I hate it when they say "Pride And Prejudice is a classic to be read by candle light on a winters evening with a good glass of red wine.".....I think Heroin might provide some comfort whilst reading it but I wouldn't count on it...the brain may become immune to opiates and actually find any pleasurable experience is flipped into excruciating agony with the entrance of Mr Darcy.
Only the image of Mr Darcy being played by Robert Mugabe would make the who procedure less torturous.
Anyway don't watch the film its crap.
Stick to the Holy Grail - guaranteed funny, even the 9017th time round.
"where Eric Idle is being married off to the fat lass"
Eric Idle? Eric Idle?
Terry Jones, Wadsworth... *clip round the ear*
Take a piece of chalk to the blackboard and write out five-hundred times,
"Yah dee buckety, thwackety f'tang, stirkel boo bum"
I'll give you an appreciation of the classics lad, if it kills the pair of us!
MTK, my bad, I have amended.
Wadders...
Holy Grail was always my favourite, despite the cop-out ending - ta for the clip...
Post a Comment